We hate it because we’re so uncomfortable with the term “the poor”. It has a ring of charity about it, when we don’t consider the welfare state to be a charity. We consider it to be a support structure for those who have fallen on hard times.

If a soldier returns from Afghanistan to spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair, he will rely on state support. But he is not “the poor”, he is the “the hero”.

Is someone in social housing poor? How about if the flat is in Covent Garden? Would you call them “the poor”? Because we’d call them “the damn lucky”.

The engineers made redundant by British Aerospace have mortgages, cars and foreign holidays. But in the hard times to come they may well look to the state for support. Does that make them “the deserving poor”? These are some of the most highly qualified well-educated people, who, through no fault of their own, are in an industry suffering a severe downturn. If they are struggling, in the months to come, if they need a helping hand, then we will offer that helping hand. But we will not regard them as “the poor” and certainly not “the deserving poor”.

It’s a term that grates with Labour people. It rubs us up the wrong way. It’s a Victorian idea that has no place in the modern day. Yet journalists constantly ask Labour politicians whether our belief in rights and responsibilities are examples or the deserving and undeserving poor.

They are not incorrect in their analysis. We do believe that some people have a greater entitlement due to their good citizenship, while others should have less entitlement due to their deliberate unwillingness to be a good citizen, but the term will always create a hostile response from a Labour politician because the language is simply unacceptable.

The media are just doing their job. They don’t intend to be offensive by using this angle. But they do need to recognise that to us, it is an offensive term and will not elicit an worthwhile response from any Labour politician or supporter.

We hate it because we’re so uncomfortable with the term “the poor”. It has a ring of charity about it, when we don’t consider the welfare state to be a charity. We consider it to be a support structure for those who have fallen on hard times.

If a soldier returns from Afghanistan to spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair, he will rely on state support. But he is not “the poor”, he is the “the hero”.

Is someone in social housing poor? How about if the flat is in Covent Garden? Would you call them “the poor”? Because we’d call them “the damn lucky”.

The engineers made redundant by British Aerospace have mortgages, cars and foreign holidays. But in the hard times to come they may well look to the state for support. Does that make them “the deserving poor”? These are some of the most highly qualified well-educated people, who, through no fault of their own, are in an industry suffering a severe downturn. If they are struggling, in the months to come, if they need a helping hand, then we will offer that helping hand. But we will not regard them as “the poor” and certainly not “the deserving poor”.

It’s a term that grates with Labour people. It rubs us up the wrong way. It’s a Victorian idea that has no place in the modern day. Yet journalists constantly ask Labour politicians whether our belief in rights and responsibilities are examples or the deserving and undeserving poor.

They are not incorrect in their analysis. We do believe that some people have a greater entitlement due to their good citizenship, while others should have less entitlement due to their deliberate unwillingness to be a good citizen, but the term will always create a hostile response from a Labour politician because the language is simply unacceptable.

The media are just doing their job. They don’t intend to be offensive by using this angle. But they do need to recognise that to us, it is an offensive term and will not elicit an worthwhile response from any Labour politician or supporter.

In days of old, the people were the criminal justice system. There were no police. If a crime happened, then the people of the village would come together to form a posse and the fugitive would be pursued across the fields. He would then be tried before a jury of twelve peers, from the village, and then his sentence would be done on the village green, with everybody watching and sometimes taking part.

Today the crime is publicised by the media, but then we, the community, are excluded. The police pursue their case in secret. The trial is held in relative secrecy, and, the jail sentence is conducted outside of the glare of public humiliation.

It’s a frustrating phenomenon of the modern world that however hard we try to explain that crime is falling the people are convinced that it’s rising. The distinction between actual crime and perceived crime makes a completely different curve on the graph.

When we ask the professionals why this is, they blame the media for the massive publicity they give to a major crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The exclusion of the media from the subsequent process is to blame. The media are allowed to report the crime, but then restricted in every subsequent step of the process.Read the rest of this entry »